Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Probably because SETI is a waste of time (Score 1) 312 312

2. If our theories about the Singularity are true, by the time our light reaches other stars, within another 1000 years or so we'll be roaring in on starships, running self replicating machinery that systematically converts all matter into more useful products. The presence of post-singularity humanity will be completely impossible to miss. Thus, the reason we cannot see other civilizations doing the same thing is because we are the first one in our region of space.

In formal logic false=>x for every x, so if you start a phrase taking the singularity theory as true, that phrase has zero meaning.

Comment: Re:The Retreat Continues? (Score 0) 277 277

You are right, and the comments are totally deluded or outright shills, molten salt reactors are unproven and if your goal is to see reductions in carbon emissions is extremely stupid to have more hope in those kind of nuclear reactors than in proven removable energy sources that have been improving their efficiency for decades now and are close to the point where they're economically superior to fossils.

Comment: Re:50 years ago (Score 1) 298 298

And who cares? Those people are 70 years old or more now, and old people always think things have gotten worse. New technology replaces old technology, and the space industry is still improving. We no longer make silly symbolic flights to the moon but the really important stuff, satellite technology, is ages ahead. Better energy productions methods are appearing. Nuclear is no longer the promise of the future. Now go back to bed granpa.

Comment: Re:Programming? (Score 1) 315 315

I'm sorry discussions about semantics are very boring to me, but I don't know why are you so fixated in numbers, CS is about processing (or computing of) information. The way you put that in the other posts seemed to me like referring to computer architecture, witch is part, but not the same, of computer science.

Comment: Re:Programming? (Score 1) 315 315

To most computer scientist the implementation details of the computer hardware are of no concern. How to move, store, and process numbers is pretty much outside of computer science and part of electronic engineering. Most CS papers deal with algorithms that are hardware and language independent.

Comment: Re:That CS is not "programming" (Score 1) 315 315

It's more like equating the study required for building a car with the study required of an automotive engineer... It's not the same, but it's not so different either. I don't thing any real CS scientist can work without knowing hot to program.

As of next Thursday, UNIX will be flushed in favor of TOPS-10. Please update your programs.

Working...